DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2 and 6-10 remain pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 9 and 10 recite a method comprising:
receiving operation history operation of a user taking a test on a user terminal;
acquiring, for each of the plurality of questions, whether or not the user has reviewed the user’s answer; and whether or not the user’s answer has been modified from a first answer to a second answer at the time of review as transition of answer status;
scoring the first answer to obtain a first score and scoring the second answer to obtain a second score;
estimating level of understanding of the user using the first score and the second score of the user to the respective questions on the test; and
generating guidance regarding learning guidance for the user based on the transition of the answer status of the user, a comparison of the first score of the first answer before modification for a question for which the user has reviewed the user’s answer and the second score of the second answer after the modification during the review, and the level of understanding of the respective questions on the test estimated by the understanding level estimation section.
The limitations of receiving operation history information, acquiring answer status, scoring the answers, estimating level of understanding of the user, and generating and transmitting guidance, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a communication device configured to communicate with a user terminal and a processor, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “communication device”, “user terminal” and “processor” language, “receiving” “acquiring”, “estimating”, “generating” and “transmitting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually receiving the operation history information, for example by viewing it on a screen or on paper, acquiring the user status by observing and analyzing the history information, scoring, estimating understanding, and providing guidance, for example orally or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims also are drawn to a method of teaching a user and therefore falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a device comprising a communication device configured to communicate with a user terminal via a network, and a processor configured to perform the claimed operations. The communication device, user terminal and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor configured to receive information from a user terminal, analyze the information, performing an estimation, and generate and transmit guidance) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the use of these components amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological field of use (client/server communication and remote data processing). See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, which cannot provide an inventive concept, or linking the use of the exception to a particular environment. Additionally, these additional limitations of a user terminal, communication device and processor in computer-based testing represent routine, conventional and well-understood activity, as demonstrated by Kim et al. (US 2012/0196261 A1) (see Fig. 8, Par. 451), Ming et al. (US 2015/0279220 A1) (see Fig. 1), and Kearns (US 2013/0224720 A1) (see 3B). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 6-8 recite the same abstract idea as in claim 1, and only recite additional abstract steps of obtaining and analyzing user information being performed by the generic computing devices. Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments filed 29 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues the claims are not drawn to a judicial exception because the core of the claims is in reconstruction of answer states from low-level operation logs such as keystroke data or selection events recorded over time. This is not persuasive. These particular types of low-level state data are not claimed. Instead, the claims merely recite acquiring data regarding whether a user has changed answer to questions. The claim are akin to those in Electric Power Group, where power grid data is accessed, analyzed and the results are displayed. The court found in EPG that this series of steps, regardless of the volume and source of data, is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues Applicant argues the claims separately store current answer data and historical answer data, which results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer. This is not persuasive. This only represents the use of generic computer components (computer memory) to store desired data relating to student answers over time. Applicant has not shown how tracking a student’s changing of an answer represents a technical improvement. Any improvement resulting from the claims is an improvement to the area of educational testing, not an improvement to computers.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant again argues that tracking answer changes instead of final answers is an improvement to computer technology. This is not persuasive for the reasons stated above. Regarding Berkheimer, it is again noted that tracking and comparing answer changes and first and second scores are directed to an abstract idea and therefore do not require a showing that the features are routine, conventional or well-understood. The claimed additional limitations, namely a user terminal, communication device and processor do represent features that are routine, conventional and well-understood, as demonstrated by Kim et al. (US 2012/0196261 A1) (see Fig. 8, Par. 451), Ming et al. (US 2015/0279220 A1) (see Fig. 1), and Kearns (US 2013/0224720 A1) (see 3B).
5. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the section 112 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9 and 10, in view of the corresponding amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715